David Kern, the central figure of Martin Suter's Lila, Lila, is a rewarding subject for character analysis because he is neither a clear hero nor a clear villain. He begins as a quiet, somewhat invisible waiter and gradually becomes a public figure whose success depends on a lie. Students tend to respond strongly to him, which produces energetic writing but also a lot of unsupported opinion. Grading these essays well means distinguishing real analysis from enthusiastic judgment.

A common problem is the essay that labels David with adjectives such as selfish, weak, or lonely and then moves on. These labels are starting points, not conclusions, and a strong paper explains how specific choices in the story reveal each trait. A student who claims David is lonely should show a scene where his isolation affects a decision and explain what the scene suggests about his motives. Your rubric should state clearly that traits must be demonstrated, not simply asserted.

Another frequent issue is flat characterization, where the student treats David as the same person from beginning to end. The most interesting essays trace change, such as how his relationship with the manuscript shifts from curiosity to dependence and eventually to anxiety. Reward papers that track development with evidence from different parts of the book. This also encourages students to read the whole novel carefully rather than relying on the opening chapters.

What a Strong Character Analysis Looks Like

The strongest essays connect David's personal choices to the larger ideas Suter explores, including authenticity, recognition, and the pressure to be someone worth admiring. They avoid retelling the plot and instead select a small number of moments that carry real interpretive weight. A top-scoring paper might argue that David's talent for observation, developed in his work as a waiter, explains both why he recognizes the manuscript's value and why he struggles to claim an identity of his own. That kind of insight links character to theme.

• Makes a claim about David that can be debated rather than a simple description
• Uses scenes from several parts of the novel to show development over time
• Explains how specific details of language or action reveal motive
• Considers how other characters see David and why that perception matters
• Connects the character study to a broader idea about identity or honesty

Handling Moral Judgment in Student Writing

Students naturally want to decide whether David is good or bad, and the question can be a productive entry point if handled carefully. The grading standard should reward the quality of the reasoning, not agreement with the teacher's view. An essay arguing that David is ultimately sympathetic can earn the same score as one condemning him, provided each supports its position with evidence and acknowledges counterpoints. Making this explicit encourages honest thinking rather than guessing at the preferred answer.

Watch for essays that substitute moral outrage for analysis, such as paragraphs that repeat how wrong David's actions are without examining why he makes them. Feedback can redirect this energy by asking the student to explain what pressures or desires drive the character. This shifts the writing from verdict to understanding, which is the core of literary analysis. Students often find the revised approach more interesting and produce noticeably stronger arguments.

Giving Feedback Students Can Use

Effective comments on character essays point to specific sentences and describe the next step. Instead of writing "develop this more," try "You say David feels trapped; which scene shows that, and what does it reveal about why he cannot confess?" That question tells the student exactly where to add detail and what kind of detail will help. It also models the habit of asking why, which transfers to other texts.

When grading a large set, create a short list of the most common character analysis issues and attach them to the corresponding rubric categories. Tools that apply your rubric, including AI-assisted options like GraideMind, can draft these comments for each paper so you can concentrate on the ones that need deeper attention. Maintaining a consistent voice across all comments ensures every student receives guidance of the same quality. That consistency is a practical form of fairness.